Politics 851 – The Public Policy Process

 

September 2003

Wednesday 10:00-1:00

AQ6036

M. Howlett

AQ 6043

604.291.3082

howlett@sfu.ca

Office Hours: Wed 1:00-2:00

 

 

 

Overview:

 

This course is designed to review relevant theoretical materials pertaining to public policy-making and test key hypotheses in the policy sciences through empirical examinations of Canadian cases in public policy-making. Policy theory related to the stages of the policy cycle; the impact of policy ideas, institutions and actors on policy outcomes; and the concepts of policy styles, and policy regimes will be reviewed and tested against examples of Canadian policy making behaviour. Throughout the course an emphasis will be placed on methodological aspects of operationalizing key concepts in the field.

 

 

Required Texts:

 

None. Course Readings have been placed on reserve in Bennett Library. Due to library restrictions on course materials these are listed both for Pol851 and for other graduate politics courses.

 

 

Grading:

 

1. Class Presentations (2) – 30%
2. Term Paper – 50%
3. Term Paper Presentation – 10%
4. Class Participation – 10%

 

Class Presentations:

 

At the beginning of term, each student will be assigned two weeks for which he/she will be responsible for commenting on the theoretical and methodological issues raised in that week’s readings. Missed assignments will receive a zero (0) grade. Students who are not presenting are expected to comment and critique class presentations and contribute to the development of a common understanding of conceptual and methodological issues of interest to political scientists engaged in public policy research.

 

Paper Topics:

 

By mid-term, each student will identify a specific topic area and methodological issue which will be the subject of their term paper. These topics and issues will be investigated through examination of a specific empirical case of Canadian public policy-making. Preliminary drafts of the term papers will be presented to class in Weeks XII-XIII. Papers are due on the last day of class, with the exception of those students presenting in Week XIII who will be granted an automatic one week extension. Late papers will lose 10% per day late.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Weekly Topics and Reading List

 

Week I September 3 – Introduction and Administration

 

 

Background Reading: Students who are unfamiliar with the following concepts should cover the associated readings listed below.

 

 

a. Policy Analysis and Political Science:

 

Garson, G. David. “From Policy Science to Policy Analysis: A Quarter Century of Progress.” In W. N. Dunn, ed(s), Policy Analysis: Perspectives, Concepts, and Methods, Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, 1986. 3-22.

 

Hawkesworth, Mary. “Epistemology and Policy Analysis.” In W. Dunn and R. M. Kelly, ed(s), Advances in Policy Studies, New Brunswick: Transaction Press, 1992. 291-329.

 

Torgerson, Douglas. “Between Knowledge and Politics: Three Faces Of Policy Analysis.” Policy Sciences. 19, no. 1 (1986): 33-59.

 

Webber, David J. “Analyzing Political Feasibility: Political Scientists' Unique Contribution to Policy Analysis.” Policy Studies Journal. 14, no. 4 (1986): 545-554.

 

b. Policy Cycles:

 

Lyden, Fremont J., George A. Shipman, and Robert W. Wilkinson. “Decision-Flow Analysis: A Methodology for Studying the Public Policy-Making Process.” In P. P. Le Breton, ed(s), Comparative Administrative Theory, Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1968. 155-168.

 

deLeon, Peter. “The Stages Approach to the Policy Process: What Has It Done? Where Is It Going?” In P. A. Sabatier, ed(s), Theories of the Policy Process, Boulder: Westview, 1999. 19-34.

 

Howlett, M. and M. Ramesh. Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems Toronto: oxford University Press, 1995 Chapter 1

 

Sabatier, Paul A. “Toward Better Theories of the Policy Process.” PS: Political Science and Politics. 24, no. 2 (1991): 144-156.

 

c. Policy Regimes

 

Eisner, Marc Allen. “Discovering Patterns in Regulatory History: Continuity, Change and Regulatory Regimes.” Journal of Policy History. 6, no. 2 (1994): 157-187.

 

Orren, Karen and Stephen Skowronek. “Regimes and Regime Building in American Government: A Review of Literature on the 1940s.” Political Science Quarterly. 113, no. 4 (1998-99): 689-702.

 

Wilson, Carter A. “Policy Regimes and Policy Change.” Journal of Public Policy. 20, no. 3 (2000): 247-271.

 

Howlett, Michael “Introduction: Policy Regimes and Policy Change in the Canadian Forest Sector” in M. Howlett ed. Canadian Forest Policy: Adapting to Change Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2001 pp. 3-20

 

d. Policy Subystems

 

Knoke, David. “Networks as Political Glue: Explaining Public Policy-Making.” In W. J. Wilson, ed(s), Sociology and the Public Agenda, London: Sage, 1993. 164-184.

 

McCool, Daniel. “The Subsystem Family of Concepts: A Critique and a Proposal.” Political Research Quarterly. 51, no. 2 (1998): 551-570.

 

Burstein, Paul. “Policy Domains: Organization, Culture and Policy Outcomes.” Annual Review of Sociology. 17(1991): 327-350.

 

Milward, H. Brinton and Gary L. Walmsley. “Policy Subsystems, Networks and the Tools of Public Management.” In R. Eyestone, ed(s), Public Policy Formation, Greenwich: JAI Press, 1984. 3-25.

 

 

 

Week II September 10 – Theories of Public Policy-Making

 

Overview:

 

Howlett, Michael and M. Ramesh. Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 2003 (second edition). Chapter 2

 

Sabatier, Paul A. Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder: Westview Press, 1999.

 

Birkland, Thomas A. An Introduction to the Policy Process; Theories, Concepts, and Models of Public Policy Making. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe, 2001.

 

Approaches:

 

Dobuzinskis, Laurent, Michael Howlett, and David Laycock, ed. Policy Studies in Canada: The State of the Art. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996.

 

 

Week III September 17 – Policy Cycles: Agenda-Setting

 

Theories:

 

Baumgartner, Frank R. and Bryan D. Jones. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993.

 

Kingdon, John W. Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies. Boston: HarperCollins College Publishers, 1995.

 

Cobb, R., J.K. Ross, and M.H. Ross. “Agenda Building as a Comparative Political Process.” American Political Science Review. 70, no. 1 (1976): 126-138.

 

Methods:

 

Howlett, Michael. “Issue-Attention and Punctuated Equilibria Models Reconsidered: An Empirical Examination of the Dynamics of Agenda-Setting in Canada.” Canadian Journal of Political Science. 30, no. 1 (1997): 3-29.

 

Howlett, Michael. “Predictable and Unpredictable Policy Windows: Issue, Institutional and Exogenous Correlates of Canadian Federal Agenda-Setting.” Canadian Journal of Political Science. 31, no. 3 (1998): 495-524.

 

Soroka, Stuart N. Agenda-Setting Dynamics in Canada Vancouver: UBC Press, 2002

 

 

Week IV September 24 - Policy Cycles: Formulation

 

Theories:

 

Linder, Stephen H. and B. Guy Peters. “Policy Formulation and the Challenge of Conscious Design.” Evaluation and Program Planning. 13(1990): 303-311.

 

Jordan, A. Grant. “Iron Triangles, Woolly Corporatism and Elastic Nets: Images of the Policy Process.” Journal of Public Policy. 1, no. 1 (1981): 95-123.

 

Lindquist, Evert A. “Public Managers and Policy Communities: Learning to Meet New Challenges.” Canadian Public Administration. 35:2(1992): 127-159.

 

Weiss, Carol H. “Research for Policy's Sake: The Enlightenment Function of Social Science Research.” Policy Analysis. 3, no. 4 (1977): 531-545.

 

Dowding, Keith. “Model or Metaphor? A Critical Review of the Policy Network Approach.” Political Studies. 43(1995): 136-158.

 

Methods:

 

Howlett, Michael. “Do Networks Matter? Linking Policy Formulation Processes to Policy Outcomes: Evidence From Four Canadian Policy Sectors 1990-2000.” Canadian Journal of Political Science. 35, no. 2 (2002) 235-268

 

Zahariadis, Nikoloas and Christopher S. Allen. “Ideas, Networks, and Policy Streams: Privatization in Britain and Germany.” Policy Studies Review. 14, no. 1/2 (1995): 71-98.

 

Daugbjerg, Carsten. Policy Networks Under Pressure: Pollution Control, Policy Reform and the Power of Farmers. Aldershot: Ashgate, 1998.

 

Coleman, William and Grace Skogstad, ed. Policy Communities and Public Policies in Canada. Toronto: Copp Clark, 1990.

 

 

Week V October 1 – Policy Cycles: Decision-Making

 

Theories:

 

Simon, Herbert A. “The Structure of Ill Structured Problems.” Artificial Intelligence. 4(1973): 181-201.

 

Lindblom, Charles E. “The Science of Muddling Through.” Public Administration Review. 19, no. 2 (1959): 79-88.

 

Smith, Gilbert and David May. “The Artificial Debate Between Rationalist and Incrementalist Models of Decision-Making.” Policy and Politics. 8, no. 2 (1980): 147-161.

 

Cohen, M., J. March, and J. Olsen. “A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice.” Administrative Science Quarterly. 17, no. 1 (1972): 1-25.

 

Teisman, Geert R. “Models for Research into Decision-Making Processes: On Phases, Streams and Decision-Making Rounds.” Public Administration. 78, no. 4 (2000): 937-956

 

Weiss, Carol H. “Knowledge Creep and Decision Accretion.” Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization. 1, no. 3 (1980): 381-404.

 

Methods:

 

Allison, Graham. Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. Boston: Little Brown, 1971.

 

Kahneman, Daniel and Amos Tversky. “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk.” Econometrica. 47(1979): 263-289.

 

Fernandes, Ronald and Herbert A. Simon. “A Study of How Individuals Solve Complex and Ill-Structured Problems.” Policy Sciences. 32(1999): 225-245.

 

Mintz, Alex and Nehemia Geva. “The PoliHeuristic Theory of Foreign Policy Decision Making.” In N. Geva and A. Mintz, ed(s), Decision-Making in War and Peace: The Cognitive-Rational Debate, Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 1997.

 

 

Week VI October 8 – Policy Cycles: Implementation

 

Theories:

 

Peters, B. Guy and F. K. M. Van Nispen, ed. Public Policy Instruments : Evaluating the Tools of Public Administration. New York: Edward Elgar, 1998.

 

Sabatier, Paul A. “Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approaches to Implementation Research: A Critical Analysis and Suggested Synthesis.” Journal of Public Policy. 6(1986): 21-48.

 

 

O'Toole, Laurence J. “Research on Policy Implementation: Assessment and Prospects.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 10, no. 2 (2000): 263-288.

 

Hood, Christopher. The Tools of Government. Chatham: Chatham House Publishers, 1986.

 

Howlett, Michael. “Managing the "Hollow State": Procedural Policy Instruments and Modern Governance.” Canadian Public Administration. 43, no. 4 (2000): 412-431.

 

Methods

Salamon, Lester M., ed. The Tools of Government: A Guide to the New Governance. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.

 

Goggin, Malcolm L. et al. Implementation Theory and Practice: Toward A Third Generation. Glenview: Scott, Foresman/Little, Brown, 1990.

 

Lester, James P. and Malcolm L. Goggin. “Back to the Future: The Rediscovery of Implementation Studies.” Policy Currents. 8, no. 3 (1998): 1-9.

 

Hawkins, Keith and John M. Thomas. “Making Policy in Regulatory Bureaucracies.” In K. Hawkins and J. M. Thomas, ed(s), Making Regulatory Policy, Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1989. 3-30.

 

Scholz, John T. “Cooperative Regulatory Enforcement and the Politics of Administrative Effectiveness.” American Political Science Review. 85, no. 1 (1991): 115-136.

 

 

Week VII October 15 – Policy Cycles: Evaluation

 

Theories:

 

Weimer, David L. and Aidan R. Vining. Policy Analysis: Concepts and Practice. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1999.

 

Geva-May, Iris. “When the Motto is 'Till Death Do Us Part": The Conceptualization and the Craft of Termination in the Public Policy Cycle.” international Journal of Public Administration. 24, no. 3 (2001): 263-288.

 

Palumbo, Dennis J. The Politics of Program Evaluation. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1987.

 

deLeon, Peter. “Policy Evaluation and Program Termination.” Policy Studies Review. 2, no. 4 (1983): 631-647.

 

Methods:

 

Chelimsky, Eleanor. “Where We Stand Today in the Practice of Evaluation: Some Reflections.” Knowledge and Policy. 8, no. 3 (1995): 8-20.

 

Patton, Carl V. and David S. Sawicki. Basic Methods of Policy Analysis and Planning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1993.

 

Nachmias, David. Public Policy Evaluation: Approaches and Methods. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1979.

 

Dobell, Rodney and David Zussman. “An Evaluation System for Government: If Politics is Theatre, then Evaluation is (mostly) Art.” Canadian Public Administration. 24, no. 3 (1981): 404-427.

 

 

Week VIII October 22 – Policy Regimes: Role of Ideas

 

Theories:

 

Hall, Peter A. “Policy Paradigms, Social Learning and the State: The Case of Economic Policy Making in Britain.” Comparative Politics. 25, no. 3 (1993): 275-96.

 

Blyth, Mark M. “"Any More Bright Ideas?" The Ideational Turn of Comparative Political Economy.” Comparative Politics. 29(1997): 229-250.

 

Braun, Dietmar and Andreas Busch, ed. Public Policy and Political Ideas. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 1999.

 

Campbell, John L. “Institutional Analysis and the Role of Ideas in Political Economy.” Theory and Society. 27, no. 5 (1998): 377-409.

 

Methods:

 

Howlett, Michael. “Policy Paradigms and Policy Change: Lessons From the Old and New Canadian Policies Towards Aboriginal Peoples.” Policy Studies Journal. 22, no. 4 (1994): 631-651.

 

Goldstein, Judith and Robert O. Keohane. “Ideas and Foreign Policy: An Analytical Framework.” In J. Goldstein and R. O. Keohane, ed(s), Ideas and Foreign Policy: Beliefs, Institutions and Political Change, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1993. 3-30.

 

Yee, Albert S. “The Causal Effects of Ideas on Policies.” International Organizations. 50, no. 1 (1996): 69-108.

 

Coleman, William D., Grace D. Skogstad, and Michael Atkinson. “Paradigm Shifts and Policy Networks: Cumulative Change in Agriculture.” Journal of Public Policy. 16, no. 3 (1996): 273-302.

 

 

Week IX October 29 – Policy Regimes: Role of Institutions

 

Theories:

 

Kiser, Larry L. and Elinor Ostrom. “The Three Worlds of Action: A Metetheoretical Synthesis of Institutional Approaches.” In E. Ostrom, ed(s), Strategies of Political Inquiry, Beverly Hills: Sage, 1982. 179-222.

 

March, James G. and Johan P. Olsen. Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics. New York: The Free Press, 1989.

 

Mahoney, James. “Path Dependence in Historical Sociology.” Theory and Society. 29, no. 4 (2000): 507-548.

 

Pierson, Paul. “Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics.” American Political Science Review. 94, no. 2 (2000): 251-267.

 

Wilsford, David. “Path Dependency, or Why History Makes It Difficult but Not Impossible to Reform Health Care Systems in A Big Way.” Journal of Public Policy. 14, no. 3 (1994): 251-284.

 

Methods:

 

Ostrom, Elinor. “A Method of Institutional Analysis.” In F. X. Kaufman, G. Majone and V. Ostrom, ed(s), Guidance, Control and Evaluation in the Public Sector, Berlin: deGruyter, 1986.

 

Weaver, R. Kent and Bert A. Rockman. “When and How do Institutions Matter?” In R. K. Weaver and B. A. Rockman, ed(s), Do Institutions Matter? Government Capabilities in the United States and Abroad, Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institutions, 1993. 445-461.

 

Liebowitz, Stan and Stephen E. Margolis. “Policy and Path Dependence: From QWERTY to Windows 95.” Regulation. 18(1995): 33-41.

 

Hall, Peter A. “The Change from Keynesianism to Monetarism: Institutional Analysis and British Economic Policy in the 1970s.” In S. Steinmo, K. Thelen and F. Longstreth, ed(s), Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. 90-114.

 

Grafstein, Robert. “The Problem of Institutional Constraint.” Journal of Politics. 50(1988): 577-599.

 

 

Week X November 5 – Policy Regimes: Role of Actors

 

Theories:

 

Heclo, Hugh. “Issue Networks and the Executive Establishment.” In A. King, ed(s), The New American Political System, Washington D.C.: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1978. 87-124.

 

Sabatier, Paul A. “An Advocacy Coalition Framework of Policy Change and the Role of Policy-Oriented Learning Therein.” Policy Sciences. 21, no. 2/3 (1988): 129-168.

 

Peters, Guy. “Policy Networks: Myth, Metaphor and Reality.” In D. Marsh, ed(s), Comparing Policy Networks, Buckingham: Open University Press, 1998. 21-32.

 

Marsh, David and Martin Smith. “Understanding Policy Networks: Towards a Dialectical Approach.” Political Studies. 48(2000): 4-21.

 

Methods:

 

Heinz, John P. et al. “Inner Circles or Hollow Cores.” Journal of Politics. 52, no. 2 (1990): 356-390.

 

Rayner, J. , M. Howlett, J. Wilson, G. Hoberg and B. Cashore ,“Privileging the Sub-Sector: Critical Sub-Sectors and Sectoral Relationships in Forest Policy-Making.” Forest Policy and Economics. 2, no. 3-4 (2001): 319-332.

 

Heinz, John P. et al. The Hollow Core: Private Interests in National Policy Making. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1993.

 

Laumann, Edward O. and David Knoke. The Organizational State: Social Choice in National Policy Domains. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1987.

 

Rice, Ronald E. and William D. Richards. “An Overview of Network Analysis Methods and Programs.” In B. Dervin and M. J. Voight, ed(s), Progress in Communication Sciences - Volume VI, Norwood: Ablex Publishing, 1985. 105-165.

 

 

 

Week XI November 12 – Policy Styles

 

Theories:

Gormley, William T. “Regulatory Enforcement.” Political Research Quarterly. 51, no. 2 (1998): 363-383.

 

Howlett, Michael. “Beyond Legalism? Policy Ideas, Implementation Styles and Emulation-Based Convergence in Canadian and U.S. Environmental Policy.” Journal of Public Policy. 20, no. 3 (2000): 305-329.

 

Kagan, Robert A. “Adversarial Legalism and American Government.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 10, no. 3 (1991): 369-406.

 

Methods:

Richardson, Jeremy, Gunnel Gustafsson, and Grant Jordan. “The Concept of Policy Style.” In J. J. Richardson, ed(s), Policy Styles in Western Europe, London: George Allen and Unwin, 1982. 1-16.

 

Howlett, Michael. “Understanding National Administrative Cultures and Their Role in Administrative Reform: A Neo-Institutional Model of Administrative Styles.” Istanbul, Turkey: Paper Presented to the International Association of Schools and Institutes of Public Administration Section V: Accountability, Culture and Trust (June 17-20, 2002).

 

Freeman, Gary P. “National Styles and Policy Sectors: Explaining Structured Variation.” Journal of Public Policy. 5, no. 4 (1985): 467-496.

 

Vogel, David. National Styles of Regulation: Environmental Policy in Great Britain and the United States. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1986.

 

May, Peter J. and Soren Winter. “Regulatory Enforcement and Compliance: Examining Danish Agro-Environmental Policy.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 18, no. 4 (1999): 625-651.

 

 

 

Week XII November 19 – Paper Presentations

 

 

Week XIII November 26 – Paper Presentations